Public libraries and digital climate change

His life's work: already to be some place else by the time anyone else got there. (Powers, 2002)

A sign of the times

This book, as is the way of most writing endeavours, began as one thing and became something else. In the initial drafting, it was intended as a straightforward introduction to Web 2.0 tools with examples of good practice, rounded off by some business case principles for local implementation. At its core, these are still the objectives.

However, over the period of time it has taken to write it, relentless changes in terms of widespread use of Web 2.0, and subsequent library interest, have occurred. For example, there was a social networking explosion provoked by micro-blogging. Twitter went from something navel-gazing celebrities and uber-geeks used to a communication network that inspired protest over the Iranian election (Schectman, 20091) and provoked a freedom of speech and of the press debate in Britain (Booth, 2009).

In an instant what was once my introduction, an exhortation similar to that in other Web 2.0 articles and books, filled with all kinds of statistics reasoning why librarians needed to jump on the social networking bandwagon, how everyone is doing it, became passé. There is no longer any need to prove the number of young people involved in some kind of web-based activity: the message from every quarter seems to be that Twitter and those of its ilk are the 'it' tools, and libraries had better get in quickly, especially if they are to bag that elusive prize, the teenager.

The real revelation would be evidence of a backlash against some of the more negative aspects of socialising in this manner. While any major backlash is unlikely to happen in the near future, it seems that Fortune's wheel has turned, ever so slightly, for Twitter anyway, if the Morgan Stanley (2009) report, 'How teenagers consume media', is anything to go by. Based on input from a 'resident expert' - Matthew Robson, a 15- year-old summer intern - the report made newspapers with such headlines, for example from Times Online, as Twitter is for old people, work experience whiz kid tells bankers' (Pavia and Kishtwari, 2009). In the Times article, Robson elaborates: 'It's aimed at adults. Stephen Fry is not particularly cool. Also, for the cost of one tweet you could send quite a few text messages.'2

This and other research would suggest, firstly, the faddishness of these tools (anyone still using MySpace?), and that for different generations there are different interests and ways of communicating (nothing new there). According to Claire Cain Miller (2009) in the New York Times, it is largely a myth that teens drive the popularity of social technology: just 11 per cent of 12-17-year-olds use Twitter, 14 per cent use MySpace and 9 per cent Facebook. But, more importantly for libraries, hopes and services for attracting any audience should not be built around the technology alone, especially when one segment of that audience, teenagers, tends not to be loyal for long. Miller points to their use of social technology: teenagers were responsible for the initial growth of Friendster and MySpace, but then transferred their loyalty to other sites, Facebook among them. In a column for the British magazine Prospect, Tom Chatfield (2009), talking about the use of Nintendo game consoles to teach mathematics, observed 'Anyone who thinks of technology as a magic wand that can be waved to banish ignorance is sure to be sorely disappointed.'

Given these views, it did not seem quite enough to write a book that simply pointed librarians in the direction of Web 2.0. And, based on my review of libraries that have taken the plunge, not only did it appear that a good number had indeed expected the technology to be the magic wand, but they also seemed quite unaware of how to attract the attention of any users beyond those already dedicated to library service.

And it may be perfectly acceptable to want to attract only local users. However, a number of public libraries are using the technology in an attempt to reach out to non-users, teenage and otherwise. Or else why have Facebook, MySpace and Twitter pages? While the interest in new technology and taking library services to where potential new users are is a positive step towards change, believing that the technology itself will do the work of attracting new users is, if not a step backward, then a standing still which will certainly not strengthen the perception of public libraries within digital communities.

Whither libraries?

While Twitter (and Stephen Fry) may not lose any sleep over a summary dismissal from a teenager, Robson also has something further to say about use related to specific environments: 'Every teenager has some access to the internet, be it at school or home. Home use is mainly used for fun (such as social networking) whilst school (or library) use is for work' (Pavia and Kishtwari, 2009). This perception of libraries as having a specific function is borne out by other research. Librarians who think the mere implementation of technology can change this view, especially among teenagers and the older student population, should pay particular attention to a University of Michigan survey (Chapman, 2008):

According to a recent study, 'a total of 23% of respondents stated that "yes" or "maybe" they would be interested in contacting a librarian via FaceBook and MySpace. Undergrads had a slightly higher than average percentage of 34%. Nearly half of the total respondents stated they would not be interested, but for various reasons - the biggest reason being that they feel the current methods (in person, email, IM) are more than sufficient. 14% said no because they felt it was inappropriate or that FaceBook/MySpace is a social tool, not a research tool.'

And from OCLC (2007):

Almost 60 percent of those surveyed for an OCLC report 'Sharing, Privacy and Trust in our Networked World' said that building social sites was not the role of libraries. 'The library is there to be a place where you can borrow books and sometimes use computers, not for people's social lives,' said one UK 15-year-old.

I can see it from their perspective: just when they get themselves settled into a new hang-out online, here come the oldies, trying to sell them stuff or tell them about all the constructive things they should be doing with their free time. One can almost smell the desperation coming off some of the pages trying to be relevant to youth. This is not to discourage the use of social networking to connect with hard-to-reach members of the community: it has been interesting and heartening to see how readily libraries have taken to Twitter within a matter of months. Any web- based tool or service affords libraries a degree of editorial freedom, a freedom frowned upon behind the somewhat restricted comfort zone of local government firewalls. This is especially true for UK public libraries. Twitter has been easier to implement and maintain than any other social networking tool, including blogs. This enthusiasm bodes well for the profession, in that there is a contingent out there ready to take risks and even have a bit of fun with service delivery.

However, what the feedback from particularly savvy online users demonstrates is that services, whether Web 2.0 or other, need to have that perfect combination of well-defined brand, objective, community and participation framework, and method of delivery. What makes a service or brand relevant is not the technology; it is whether it is needed or desired by the community.

If the group they are trying so hard to attract perceives libraries in such specific terms, it is useful to consider, at both local and global levels, how much of a change to service and ethos libraries are willing to undertake to transform that image, and then to capture and keep the attention of the new users they may attract. Or is it necessary to change the image and the brand at all? Should we just enhance the strong brand we already have by creating new services using the new technology? The physical act of creating the Facebook page or the Twitter account is not the end of the process; it may be the beginning of a whole new way of delivering service and interacting with communities. This challenge could be an opportunity to strengthen an already strong brand.

And that brand can only be bolstered by preparation, firstly, for joining a new community, for make no mistake this is what using the new technology is all about: joining the digital community in a much more active way than simply setting up a website. Part of this preparation is the identification and articulation of role, objective, community, service and service delivery. Once these elements are well defined, technology for delivery can be decided upon and implemented. And it might be that this technology includes Web 2.0 tools. It will probably not consist solely of them, but the incorporation of these tools can be the first step in recognising the evolving nature of the interplay between communication and information. In the past, the mechanism - the book, the magazine - was narrowly defined, the...